Submission Methods
Paper format: Authors must prepare their papers using Microsoft Word, according to the guidelines and templates, and then convert these files to PDF. Submissions must be self-contained. Authors are required to submit their electronic papers in WORD and PDF format. Papers will be accepted in English only.
Submissions to DAI 2025 should report on significant, original, and previously unpublished results on any aspect of data science, advanced algorithm and intelligent computing. Papers on AI research problems, on techniques for mechatronics and automation domains, and papers that cross discipline boundaries within computer science and mechatronics are especially encouraged. The reviewing process of the DAI aims to provide authors with constructive feedback on their papers, even when a submission is rejected. All submissions will be subjected to double-blind peer reviews, who are expert or have been experiencing in the related field for years. The accepted papers must be revised, taking into consideration the referees' comments and suggestions, before inclusion in the conference proceedings.
Dual submissions: DAI 2025 will not accept any paper that, at the time of submission, is under review for, has already been published in, or has already been accepted for publication in a journal or another venue with formally published proceedings. (As a guideline, authors should regard publications with a DOI, ISBN, or ISSN as formal publications. Questions about submission eligibility should be referred to the program chair before the submission deadline.) Authors are also required not to submit their papers to venues with formally published proceedings during the DAI 2025 review period. These restrictions do not apply to workshops and similar specialized presentations with a limited audience and without published proceedings.
For each accepted paper, at least one author must attend the conference and present the paper. Authors of all accepted papers must prepare a final version for publication, a poster presentation or a short video/live oral presentation.
Presentation Instructions
1. The submitted abstract should contain a sufficient summary of the paper and outline of goals, results, and conclusion, including conveying sufficient understanding when reading in isolation from the paper.
2. If your full paper has been finished, you don't have to submit abstract, please submit your full paper directly.
The duration of a presentation slot is 15 minutes. Please target your presentation for a duration of about 12 minutes for the presentation plus about 3 minutes for questions from the audience and committee members.
Authors must prepare their oral presentations to be sure to convey their message in clear and sharp manner, including giving outline of the key principles, facts and results. More detailed discussions can continue during the breaks.
For MS-PowerPoint presentations, please use the following versions only: PP 97-2003 (*.ppt) or 2007, 2010 to guarantee that it will be opened successfully on the on-site PC.
For the poster session, we expect that at least one author stands by the poster for (most of the time of) the duration of the poster session.
Peer Review
Peer Review Process Overview
The proceeding adheres to a rigorous, double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality and ethical standards. Key steps are outlined below:
1. Manuscript Allocation：Within one week after submission, the Editor-in-Chief assigns each manuscript to 2–3 independent reviewers with expertise aligned to the paper’s topic. Reviewers must declare no conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborations, institutional affiliations, or financial ties with authors) prior to participation.
2. Initial Screening (1 week)：Reviewers conduct a preliminary check for compliance with formatting guidelines, structural completeness (abstract, methods, results, etc.), and thematic relevance. Manuscripts failing to meet basic standards are desk-rejected, with detailed feedback provided to authors.
3. In-Depth Evaluation (3 weeks)：Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological validity, data integrity, and contribution to the field. Evaluations include:
•A categorical rating (Accept/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject)
•Constructive comments for improvement
•A confidential recommendation to the Editor
4. Decision-Making & Conflict Resolution：The Editor consolidates reviews and resolves discrepancies through panel discussions. Final decisions prioritize both scholarly rigor and a target acceptance rate of 【40%】, which balances selectivity with support for emerging research. Borderline manuscripts may undergo additional review or statistical validation.
5. Author Notification：Authors receive a decision within 1-week post-review, including anonymized reviewer comments. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production; others may be invited to resubmit after revision (2-month revision window).
6. Revisions & Appeals：Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated within 2 weeks. Authors may appeal decisions with a point-by-point rebuttal, which triggers an independent audit by the Editorial Board.
Reviewer's Criteria
Reviewers are typically asked to evaluate papers based on several criteria:
1. Originality and Innovation: Is the paper presenting new ideas, methodologies, or findings? Does it contribute to the advancement of the field?
2. Technical Soundness: Are the methods used sound and appropriate? Is the analysis rigorous? Are the results well-supported by the data?
3. Relevance to the Conference: Does the paper fit within the scope of the conference themes and tracks?
4. Clarity and Organization: Is the paper well-organized, with clear arguments and structure? Are the ideas presented in a coherent and understandable way?
5. Literature Review and References: Does the paper appropriately engage with existing literature? Is there a clear understanding of the state of the field?
6. Ethical Considerations: Does the research adhere to ethical standards, especially in areas like data privacy, human subjects, etc.?
7. Practical Implications: For applied research, reviewers will also assess the potential practical impact or applications of the findings.
8. Each of these criteria is typically scored on a numerical scale (e.g., 1-5), and reviewers are asked to provide detailed feedback and suggestions for improvement.
Ethics & Transparency
1. COPE Compliance: All participants follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines.
2. Gender/Geographic Inclusion: Reviewers evaluate whether gender, race, or geographic factors are appropriately addressed.
3. Diversity Auditors: 2 committee members monitor demographic balance in accepted papers quarterly.
4. AI Usage: AI tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, statistical error flags) assist but never replace human judgment.